The fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant is often used as a way to show that we can’t know objective, transcendent truth. Each religion may contain part of the truth, but none contains all of it. Each one could be looked at as a path to God. Skeptics also use this fable as a way to say that objective truth doesn’t exist. We can’t know the objective truth.

In case you haven’t heard of the parable, here it is.

Six blind men are taken to the palace of the Rajah. They enter into the courtyard, where they are led to an elephant standing in the middle and asked to describe what they feel.

The first blind man put out his hand and touched the side of the elephant. “How smooth! An elephant is like a wall.” The second blind man put out his hand and touched the trunk of the elephant. “How round! An elephant is like a snake.” The third blind man put out his hand and touched the tusk of the elephant. “How sharp! An elephant is like a spear.” The fourth blind man put out his hand and touched the leg of the elephant. “How tall! An elephant is like a tree.” The fifth blind man reached out his hand and touched the ear of the elephant. “How wide! An elephant is like a fan.” The sixth blind man put out his hand and touched the tail of the elephant. “How thin! An elephant is like a rope.”¹

An argument ensued, each blind man thinking his own perception of the elephant was the correct one. The Rajah, awakened by the commotion, called out from the balcony. “The elephant is a big animal,” he said. “Each man touched only one part. You must put all the parts together to find out what an elephant is like.”

Enlightened by the Rajah’s wisdom, the blind men reached agreement. “Each one of us knows only a part. To find out the whole truth we must put all the parts together.”

Is this an accurate analogy? Are the world’s religions like blind men groping a small part of a big elephant? Does each of the religions have a piece of the puzzle that can only be realized if we come together? Can objective truth be known?

This example fails to demonstrate objective truth claims right from the beginning. While each of the blind men man not be able to see the whole elephant, it doesn’t change the fct that the entire elephant does exist. And even though the blind men may not know the whole truth, at least three people do; the narrator, the Rajah, and the reader. So, even though these siex men don’t know the truth, someone else does. Which means it can be known. It just requires the proper perspective. The Rajah knows the thing is an elephant because he is up in his balcony and can see the whole thing.

The other way this example fails – particularly in Christianity – that, in our case, the elephant can talk. And has. Many times over the course of history. If the elephant is supposed to represent God (or something transcendent), then when one of the blind men says “the elephant is like a snake,”, the elepnat tells him, “no, I’m not. I’m an elephant. I’ large, I have a tail, legs, big ears, tusks, and a trunk, too”.

God isn’t like the elephant in this parable. God has spoken, and continues to speak. He tells us what he is like, how the world works, why it’s so messed up, and how we fix it. We just have to have the right perspective to see the truth.